JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J. This appeal arises out of judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.10.2002 and 31.10.2002 respectively passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 175 of 2002, in connection with Ghagra P.S. Case No. 31/02, G.R. Case No. 231 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC and 4 of Prevention of Witch (Dian) Practices Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 of the IPC and also fine of Rs.2000/- (Two Thousand). In default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for 3 (Three) months. Further sentenced to R.I. for 1 (one) year, under Section 324 of IPC, and R.I. for 3 (Three) months under Section 4 of Prevention of Witch (Dian) Practices Act. The sentences so passed were directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case as per the fardbeyan, in brief, is that on 22.4.2002 at about 11.30 a.m. at village Etcha Dhanka Toli, police station- Ghagra, District- Gumla, the informant Nunua Devi, her husband Sukra Oraon (deceased) and Bihar Oraon were chatting in the house of the informant. Meanwhile, Minu Oraon @ Chuma Oraon (appellant) arrived there armed with sword and assaulted Sukra Oraon by means of sword on his face, head, neck and other parts of the body. Bihar Oraon tried to save Sukra Oraon but the appellant also assaulted Bihar Oraon on his forehead above the eyebrow. It has been further stated that Bihar Oraon came to the house of the informant and asked for water and after drinking water, he was chatting with her husband at the time of the incident. Bihar Oraon on sustaining injury fled away from the house of the informant. Sukra Oraon succumbed to the injuries. The motive behind the occurrence was that the appellant had been suspecting that due to witch practices of Sukra Oraon (deceased), death of son of the appellant occurred. The informant gave her fardbeyan to S.I., Ashok Kumar of PS Ghagra, at her residence on 22.4.2002 at 3.00 p.m. 3. On the basis of fardbeyan, a formal FIR was drawn. S.I. Ashok Kumar of Ghagra PS prepared the inquest report (ext. 6) and recorded the farebeyan of the informant Nunua Devi. Thereafter S.I. Mushaq Ali partly investigated the case. The informant gave her fardbeyan to S.I., Ashok Kumar of PS Ghagra, at her residence on 22.4.2002 at 3.00 p.m. 3. On the basis of fardbeyan, a formal FIR was drawn. S.I. Ashok Kumar of Ghagra PS prepared the inquest report (ext. 6) and recorded the farebeyan of the informant Nunua Devi. Thereafter S.I. Mushaq Ali partly investigated the case. The police after due investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302, 324 of the IPC and under Section 4 of PWP Act in the Court of C.J.M., Gumla, and after cognizance the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 4. Charges were framed against the appellant to which he denied and claimed to be tried. 5. Prosecution in support of its case, examined 7 (Seven) witnesses, namely, PW-1 Nunua Devi, who is the informant of the prosecution case; PW-2 Bihar Oraon, who is the injured witness; PW-3 Mahanand Bhagat is the witness of inquest report; PW-4 Hari Oraon, who is also the witness of the inquest report; PW-5 Dr. Surendra Singh, who had examined the injured Bihar Oraon; PW-6 Ashok Kumar, S.I. of Police, who was the Investigating Officer; PW-7 Dr. Krishna Prasad, who conducted post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased Sukra Oraon. Learned Trial Court considering the evidence on record held the appellant guilty and hence, this appeal. 6. PW-1 Nunua Devi has deposed that about 5 months ago at about 11:00 a.m. when she was sitting with her husband in the Varanda of her house, at that time Bihar Oraon, PW-2, came in her house to drink water. After giving him water all of them were chatting in the Varanda. Accused Minu Oraon armed with sword came there. He assaulted the informant’s husband Sukru Oraon (deceased) by means of sword. He sustained injuries on head, face, neck and other parts of the body. He died on the spot. Bihar Oraon tried to save him but accused Minu Oraon also assaulted him on his forehead, just above the eyebrow. She further deposed that the accused suspected that deceased Sukru Oraon was a witch and due to his witchcraft his son died sometimes ago. She further stated that S.I. came to her house and recorded her statement and stated that she put her L.T.I. on the fardbeyan which was recorded by S.I. before him. She identified the accused in the dock. She further stated that S.I. came to her house and recorded her statement and stated that she put her L.T.I. on the fardbeyan which was recorded by S.I. before him. She identified the accused in the dock. In her cross examination, she has further stated that there was no enmity between the accused and her husband prior to the occurrence. She further said that when the accused fled away from the place of occurrence, the villagers came to her house. 7. PW-2 Bihar Oraon has also deposed that the incident is of 5 months ago. He states that on the date at around 11.00 a.m., he went to the house of informant Nunua Devi to drink water. Sukru Oraon and the informant were in the house. He states further that he drank water and was chatting with the informant and her husband in their house. At that time accused Minu Oraon @ Chuma Oraon came there armed with sword. He assaulted Sukru Oraon two to three times by means of sword due to which Sukru Oraon sustained injuries on his neck and head. He further deposed that he tried to save the deceased but he himself received injury near his eyebrow with the sword. He was examined by the Doctor at Ghaghra Hospital. He further states that Nunua Devi gave her fardbeyan to the S.I. and she put her L.T.I. on the fardbeyan and he also signed over it. He has proved his signature as ext. 1. He has proved his signature on the seizure list of blood stained earth (ext.2). He further deposed that on receiving injury he fled away from the place of occurrence due to fear. He further states that police went to his house. He along with police went to PS by jeep. He further states that informant Nunua Devi put her L.T.I in her house. 8. PW-3 Mahanand Bhagat in his deposition agreed that the date of occurrence was 22.4.02. He states further that he was at home. Nunua Devi, the wife of Sukru Oraon, came to his house and disclosed that Minu Oraon murdered Sukru Oraon. He further states that he went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body lying in the Varanda. He deposed that he saw Minu Oraon near the house of Hari Oraon. He further states that Bihar Oraon disclosed to him that Minu Oraon also assaulted him. He further states that he went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body lying in the Varanda. He deposed that he saw Minu Oraon near the house of Hari Oraon. He further states that Bihar Oraon disclosed to him that Minu Oraon also assaulted him. He has proved his signature (ext 3) on the inquest report. He states that inquest report was prepared by S.I. before him. This witness is a hearsay witness to the assault. 9. PW-4 Hari Oraon states that on hearing hulla he went to the place of occurrence and saw accused Minu Oraon near the door of the informant’s house with sword. He further states that he went inside the house and saw the dead body of Sukru Oraon. He further states that informant Nunua Devi disclosed to him about the occurrence and told that Minu Oraon committed murder of Sukru Oraon. He has proved his signature (ext 3/1) on the inquest report. This witness is also hearsay witness to the assault. 10. PW-5 Dr. Surendra Singh states that on 22.4.02 he had examined Bihar Oraon PW-2. He further states that he had found lacerated wound on right eye of size ½”x ½”x ¼” on right eyebrow. He opined that nature of injury was simple and caused by hard and blunt substance. He has proved injury report (ext 4). 11. PW-7, Dr. Krishna Prasad states that on 23.4.02 he conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sukru Oraon, 52 years male. The dead body was identified by chaukidar 4/8 Fekan Oraon and chaukidar 5/6 Sukhnath Oraon. He opined that nature of injury was simple and caused by hard and blunt substance. He has proved injury report (ext 4). 11. PW-7, Dr. Krishna Prasad states that on 23.4.02 he conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sukru Oraon, 52 years male. The dead body was identified by chaukidar 4/8 Fekan Oraon and chaukidar 5/6 Sukhnath Oraon. He states that he had found the following injuries on the dead body:- (i) Incised wound over forehead size 4”x ½”x 1 ½” cutting the frontal bone; (ii) Incised wound ½” below the injury No.1 size 4”x ½”x 1 ½” cutting the frontal bone; (iii) Incised wound over left side of face obliqully placed cutting jagomatic and pinna size 4”x ½”x 1 ½”; (iv) Incised wound over left angle of mouth size 4”x ½”x 1” cutting the carotery artiry; (v) Incised wound over left parital bone size 4”x ½”x2” cutting the parital bone brain matter has coming out; (vi) Incised wound below left mandibul size 4”x ½”x 1”; (vii) Incised wound under chin 4”x ½”x 1”; (viii) Incised wound over left shoulder three in number ½” apart each measuring about 3”x 1”x 1” ½” cutting the heemrous; (ix) Incised wound over dorsam of right hand size 3”x ½” x 1 ½”; (x) Incised wound over right side of back seven in number about ½” apart each measury about 1”x ½” x 2” cutting the legs. He opined that all the injuries are ante-mortem in nature and all are grievous. He also opined that all the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon like sword (Talwar). According to this witness, death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage. He has proved post mortem report (ext 8). 12. PW-6 Ashok Kumar is the IO of the case. He deposed that on 22.4.02 he was informed that one person was murdered in village Echa Dhaka Toli. He entered it in the station diary at Sl. No. 479. He further states that he reached the P.O. village and found Sukru Oraon murdered. He further states that he recorded the fardbeyan of Nunua Devi wife of the deceased. He has proved the faredbeyan (ext 5). He further states that he had prepared inquest report. He has proved inquest report (ext 6). No. 479. He further states that he reached the P.O. village and found Sukru Oraon murdered. He further states that he recorded the fardbeyan of Nunua Devi wife of the deceased. He has proved the faredbeyan (ext 5). He further states that he had prepared inquest report. He has proved inquest report (ext 6). He further states that S.I. Mashooq Ali was given charge of investigation by him and S.I. Mashooq Ali seized blood stained earth and prepared seizure list of the same. He has recognized the signature of Mashooq Ali on the seizure list. He has proved the seizure list (ext 7). He further deposed that he sent the dead body for post mortem examination to Sadar Hospital, Gumla. He further states that on 3.5.02 he had taken charge of investigation of this case due to the transfer of S.I. Mashooq Ali. He further stated that he submitted charge sheet under Sections 302/324 IPC and 3/4 of W.C.P. Act. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to weaken or destroy the case of the prosecution by finding certain inconsistency in the deposition or evidence of witnesses. Learned counsel says that PW-2 has stated in para-10 that no one came from the village, while the informant says in para-17 that 100 persons came. So this is a vital contradiction and if 100 persons came, then many more should have given evidence. 14. He has also submitted, by referring to para-19 of PW-2, that after he was injured, he ran away after which he could not say what happened. So counsel argues that he is not a witness to the entire sequence of events or the murder. 15. He has also argued that in her deposition PW-1 has said she was sitting, but then also says she ran away when assault began. So she was either sitting or not on the spot. Moreover, since she ran away, she is also not a witness to the murder. Counsel has also said that, in para-9 of the IO's evidence, though blood stained soil was taken, but it was not sent to FSL, in such circumstances, whose blood was taken is not proved, or whether it was even human blood or may be some animals is a question to be answered. 16. Counsel has also said that, in para-9 of the IO's evidence, though blood stained soil was taken, but it was not sent to FSL, in such circumstances, whose blood was taken is not proved, or whether it was even human blood or may be some animals is a question to be answered. 16. Another argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that there was an illicit relationship between PW-1 and PW-2, and why PW-2 would travel half a kilometer for a glass of water. He has suggested that murder was a conspiracy of PW-1 and PW-2. 17. Learned counsel for the State has said that this is an open and close case. There are two eye witnesses, one who is injured and the other is the wife herself, so when the witnesses are reliable, the case is fully made out. 18. Counsel has said that the argument that PW-2 is in illicit relationship is cooked up, and such arguments will actually go against the appellant. Moreover, why would he inflict injuries on himself also, and he has further submitted that appellant's counsel has not stated whether any other witness has indicated about such an illicit relationship. Hence, such allegation work against the appellant and given that there are two eye witnesses to the crime, conviction must succeed. Appellant is disparately trying to demolish the crucial witnesses without any basis. 19. Having gone through the records of the case, depositions and evidences and the arguments of the case (though motive it seems has not been attributed) the facts indicated so far point towards the guilt of the appellant. 20. First and foremost, there are two eye witnesses to the assault or the initial assault. PW-1 and PW-2 were present when the appellant attacked the deceased. PW-2 only fled, after he himself had also been significantly injured. In retrospect, given the numerous injuries on the body of the deceased it would have required much courage to remain at the spot. Since PW-2 is an injured eye witness, he is also a credible witness, and his version of events is highly believable. 21. PW-1 has corroborated the fardbeyan though it is not an exhaustive document. There are no major contradiction in her evidence. Being the wife of the deceased, and more, the body was found in the house itself, she is a natural and believable witness. 22. 21. PW-1 has corroborated the fardbeyan though it is not an exhaustive document. There are no major contradiction in her evidence. Being the wife of the deceased, and more, the body was found in the house itself, she is a natural and believable witness. 22. The allegation of illicit relationship is only to discredit the most reliable two witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2. However, in the light of the wounds, received by PW-2, it seems highly exaggerated, far-fetched and absurd to say the least. 23. PW-5 Dr. Surendra Singh has described the wounds received by Bihar Oraon PW-2. He further states that he had found one lacerated wound of size ½”x ½”x ¼” on right eyebrow. He opined that nature of injury was simple and caused by hard and blunt substance. He has proved injury report (ext 4). 24. The wound is on the right eye brow, which is on the face itself, he could have gone blind in one eye. Why would he go to such extent in furtherance of an illicit affair or even murder. Further, as submitted by the counsel for the State, no other witnesses seems to have indicated such illicit affair. 25. PW-4 Hari Oraon, on hearing the alarm, was an immediate witness, who then went to the place of occurrence and he saw the appellant Minu Oraon near the door of the informant's house with his sword. Though this witness may not have seen the assault himself, he did see the appellant with the alleged murder weapon at the door of the informant, it seems just after the assault. PW-3 Mahanand Bhagat has also seen the appellant near the house of the informant. Hence, PW-3 and PW-4 both saw the accused near the house of the deceased, and one of them also saw him with the sword, hence these points to the truthfullness of PW-1 and PW-2. 26. The blood stained soil not being sent to the FSL does not demolish the evidence of the two eye witnesses PW-1 and PW-2, who are corroborated by PW-3, who says he saw the appellant near the house of the informant, and PW-4 also says he saw the appellant holding a sword. 27. PW-6 is the IO, Ashok Kumar. He has deposed that he visited the place of occurrence, the house of the informant and saw the dead body. 27. PW-6 is the IO, Ashok Kumar. He has deposed that he visited the place of occurrence, the house of the informant and saw the dead body. The fardbeyan of PW-1, which he said, is in his writing and his signature is there. He has proved the fardbeyan as ext 5. He also took the statement of PW-2 Bihar Oraon. 28. He prepared the inquest report and PW-3 and PW-4, whose roles have already been indicated put their signature on it. The inquest report has been proved as ext 6. 29. All the above sequence of events and evidences would indicate the involvement of the appellant in the murder of the deceased. 30. Finally, to indicate the seriousness of the crime, the report of PW-7 Dr. Krishna Prasad, who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Sukra Oraon, is reproduced hereinbelow: (i) Incised wound over forehead size 4”x ½”x 1 ½” cutting the frontal bone; (ii) Incised wound ½” below the injury No.1 size 4”x ½”x 1 ½” cutting the frontal bone; (iii) Incised wound over left side of face obliqully placed cutting jagomatic and pinna size 4”x ½”x 1 ½”; (iv) Incised wound over left angle of mouth size 4”x ½”x 1” cutting the carotery artiry; (v) Incised wound over left parital bone size 4”x ½”x2” cutting the parital bone brain matter has coming out; (vi) Incised wound below left mandibul size 4”x ½”x 1”; (vii) Incised wound under chin 4”x ½”x 1”; (viii) Incised wound over left shoulder three in number ½” apart each measuring about 3”x 1”x 1” ½” cutting the heemrous; (ix) Incised wound over dorsam of right hand size 3”x ½” x 1 ½”; (x) Incised wound over right side of back seven in number about ½” apart each measury about 1”x ½” x 2” cutting the legs. He opined that all the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon like Talwar and were grievous According to this witness, death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage. He has proved post mortem report (ext 8). 31. So after having gone through the records, the depositions, the arguments and in the facts and circumstances, the appellant's conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court in connection with Sessions Trial No. 175 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 231 of 2002, arising out of Ghagra P.S. Case No. 31/02 is upheld. 32. 31. So after having gone through the records, the depositions, the arguments and in the facts and circumstances, the appellant's conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court in connection with Sessions Trial No. 175 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 231 of 2002, arising out of Ghagra P.S. Case No. 31/02 is upheld. 32. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.